238 



allowed to set up in answer thereto, that he was a 

 horse-dealer, and sold the horse on a Sunday, con- 

 trary to the provisions of the statute, for of course 

 a man cannot set up his own wrong doing, as a 

 defence in a court of law : but in this case it is to 

 be noticed that the buyer was not aware of the 

 profession of the dealer. 



It must be borne in mind, that although the 

 contract may be void by reason of its being made 

 on a Sunday, yet if a purchaser makes a subse- 

 quent promise to pay, the value of the horse may 

 be recovered, not upon the original contract, but 

 on the subsequent undertaking : Williams v. Paul, 

 4 M. and P. 532. 



Another general rule of law is, that no title can 

 be made to stolen property, and that no contract is 

 valid, founded upon fraud. 



In Lofft's Reports, 601, it is decided that trover 

 will not lie for goods which upon the facts proved, 

 appeared to have been feloniously taken ; and in 

 Grimson v. Woodfall, 2 Carrington and Payne, 

 page 41, it was further decided, that if a party has 

 good reason to believe that his goods have been 

 stolen, he cannot maintain trover against the person 

 who bought them of the supposed thief, unless he 

 has done every thing in his power to bring the thief 

 to justice ; but these cases do not take away the 



